The majority of Americans believe in the value of higher education. But, in order to attend and complete college, students must first be able to afford it. Several recent studies demonstrate what National College Attainment Network (NCAN) members, students, and parents have long known to be true: cost remains the largest barrier to higher education.

NCAN and our members are committed to improving the landscape of college affordability and reversing inequitable trends in college access and attainment – which disproportionately impact students from low-income backgrounds, those who will be first in their families to attend college, and students of color.

In order to close these affordability gaps, we must first understand and document the scope of the problem. The Growing Gap – NCAN’s annual study on college affordability within the public postsecondary sector – identifies the prevalence of “unaffordability” at public bachelor’s-granting institutions and community colleges across the United States, for students from families with low to moderate incomes.

Calculating Affordability

Measuring affordability is complicated. There are many factors that determine whether families are able to pay, or feel comfortable paying, the price of a postsecondary degree.

NCAN proposes that for each institution in our sample, the total price of college for an in-state student, plus an additional $300 to account for emergency expenses, should not exceed the combined total of grant aid, loans, Federal Work Study (FWS), an estimated expected family contribution (EFC), and a student’s summer wages. These metrics are defined as follows:

• Total price: For in-state students living on campus (bachelor’s-granting institutions); for in-state students living off-campus, not with family (community colleges). Sourced from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
• Emergency expenses: NCAN uses a $300 constant to approximate unforeseen expenses that may present an obstacle for students’ postsecondary success.
• Grant aid: Average amount of federal, state, local, and institutional grant aid awarded to full-time, first-time, undergraduate students. (IPEDS)
• Student loans: Average amount of federal loans disbursed to full-time, first-time undergraduate students. (IPEDS)
• Federal Work Study: Average institutional disbursement of Federal Work Study dollars (total FWS disbursement/number of FWS recipients at each institution.) FWS data comes from Federal Student Aid’s campus-based program report.
• Expected Family Contribution: We use federal Pell Grant Program Annual Data Report data to calculate an EFC value in a given academic year, by subtracting the average Pell Grant amount from the maximum Pell Grant amount.
• Summer Wages: Calculated as a state’s minimum wage multiplied by 40 hours per week for 12 weeks. Minimum wage data comes from the US Department of Labor.

Put more simply, an institution is affordable if:

When an institution’s total price plus emergency expenses exceeds the sum of grants, loans, Federal Work Study, our proxy for EFC, and three months of summer earnings at minimum wage, NCAN refers to the remaining cost as an “affordability gap.” The gap represents the average cost unmet by the various financial aid sources included in our model.

NOTE: The number of institutions reporting data may vary across both report releases and academic years. For the institutional sample analyzed in this report, NCAN includes all institutions that have reported price, grants, and loans data from IPEDS. Institutions missing one or more of those metrics were excluded from the sample. This year, our sample size is 1,216 institutions. This includes 655 community colleges and 561 bachelor’s-granting institutions. More detailed information on methodology and data are available upon request. For a full list of sources used in this analysis, please see the appendix below.

VIEW NCAN'S UPDATED STATE AFFORDABILITY PROFILES

Research Findings

Key Takeaways (n = 1,216)

For the average student in our sample, in 2021-22 (the latest year with complete data,), NCAN finds that:

• Only 1/3rd (33%) of public bachelor’s-granting institutions were affordable
• Fewer than half (49%) of community colleges were affordable
• The average affordability gap at public BA-granting institutions was $1,690
• The average affordability gap at community colleges was $287

These findings continue to sound the alarm about the lack of availability of affordable public postsecondary options nationwide, and more generally, underscore the persistent challenges that students from low- and moderate-income families face when it comes to paying for college.

NCAN’s comprehensive findings from the latest Growing Gap research are below.

Questions about the research can be directed to Louisa Woodhouse, Senior Policy Associate, at woodhouse@ncan.org

DIVE DEEPER INTO THE DATA WITH THIS INTERACTIVE DASHBOARD

Public Bachelor’s-Granting College and Universities (n = 561)

• Based on our sample and methodology, there are 12 states with zero affordable public bachelor’s-granting institutions (CT, KS, MA, ND, NH, NJ, OR, RI, SC, SD, VT, and WI)
• 24 states had a higher percentage of unaffordable public bachelor’s-granting institutions than the national average (68% or higher)
• In only 10 states were more than 50% of public BA programs affordable (AK, AR, FL, IL, ME, NM, OK, WA, WV, and WY)
• Based on our formula, the average public bachelor’s-granting institution was affordable in only 12 states (38 states exhibited affordability gaps at the average public bachelor’s-granting institution)
• 23 states have a larger affordability gap for public bachelor’s-granting institutions, on average, than exists nationally ($1,758 or more)

Public bachelor’s-granting colleges and universities were established specifically to offer a more affordable alternative to private higher education options for students, and to support the growth and development of the local workforce in each state. NCAN’s findings in this analysis provide continued evidence that this has not been broadly successful. The affordability of public bachelor’s-granting institutions is especially critical for low- and moderate-income students because bachelor’s degrees are associated with higher earnings, lower unemployment rates, and greater economic security for families.

While the national average affordability gap in this year’s report is smaller than those in years past, other data points paint a worrisome picture of the national affordability landscape for public bachelor’s-granting institutions. With nearly a quarter of states in the country exhibiting zero affordable public bachelor’s-granting institution options for in-state students, the need for increased funding of higher education, and specifically need-based financial aid, is clear.

Community College Programs (n = 655)

• Based on our sample and methodology, there are four states with zero affordable community colleges (HI, NH, RI, and UT)
• 22 states had a higher percentage of unaffordable community colleges than the national average (58% or higher)
• In 24 states, at least half of community colleges were unaffordable, on average
• In our sample, there are only 10 states where at least 75% of community colleges are affordable, and only three states where all community colleges are affordable (IN, ME, VT)
• Community college programs were unaffordable, on average, in 28 states
• 19 states had an average affordability gap at community colleges that was larger than the national average gap for institutions in that sector ($447 or more)

Our analysis shows that fewer than half of the community colleges in our sample are affordable, on average. This finding is particularly concerning, given that community colleges – often with open enrollment policies and lower costs of attendance than bachelor’s-granting institutions – are designed to be a more accessible option for students looking to bolster their academic skill sets and earn postsecondary degrees.

Even though most community colleges in our sample were unaffordable, the relatively small affordability gap means there is opportunity for impactful change. A national gap of less than $300 at community colleges, on average, suggests that a relatively minor increase in financial aid – ideally by way of federal, state, or local grant funding – could alleviate the cost barriers that students currently experience, paving the way to affordable postsecondary options.

Discussion

Examination of trends from the last seven years of Growing Gap data reveals that affordability has recently increased, both in terms of the percent of affordable institutions and the size of the affordability gaps. This increase in affordability as calculated by the NCAN formula is the result of several factors:

• A decrease in tuition and fees
• A decrease in enrollment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic
• Small yet steady increases in the federal Pell Grant maximum
• An influx of additional federal funding, particularly in 2021-22, from the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF).

The notable jump in affordability from 2020-21 to 2021-22 is mostly driven by the HEERF funding, which was disbursed in several stages as relief for schools and students between 2020 and 2022. The HEERF 2022 Annual Performance Report describes that in 2022, the average Pell Grant recipient received $1,380 in funding, while those not eligible for a Pell Grant received $890 in HEERF grants, on average. In total, $75.3 billion were distributed, including direct-to-student aid and operational support for institutions. Nearly 20 million students received HEERF grants.

Because the increases observed in affordability for the 2021-2022 academic year result from the unusual expenditure of emergency federal funding, they may not be representative of a broader increase in affordability of higher education across the United States. That said, the impact of the HEERF dollars is also a strong argument for continued investment in direct-to-student federal education funding.

When conceptualizing affordability, we can measure either the percent of affordable institutions by category (sector, state, etc.) or the count. Both considerations are important, as they each highlight meaningful information about college accessibility and affordability.

In our sample, some states have high percentages of affordable institutions — which is positive at face value — but a small number of colleges and universities. For students who live close to these institutions, college may be both accessible and affordable. For many students who live in rural or remote areas, far from the otherwise affordable postsecondary institutions in their state, college may remain inaccessible. Conversely, states with many colleges and universities benefit from affordability rankings based on the raw count of affordable institutions. However, some of these states perform less well when examining affordability by percentages.

Despite the upward tick in affordability seen in this year’s findings – a result of HEERF funds, primarily – this year’s report emphasizes the need for greater investment in college affordability policies and at the federal and state level. Increased funding for federal programs including the Pell Grant, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG), and Federal Work Study, would substantially lower the net price of college for students from low-income backgrounds.

At the state level, additional funding is needed both for state financial aid programs and to bolster operational support for public colleges. Aside from larger financial investments, NCAN has identified numerous elements that lead to more effective state financial aid programs. Namely, we suggest that financial aid programs are well-targeted, transparent, and predictable, and simple to access and retain. Our financial aid framework, outlining best practices for the design of state financial aid programs, can be found here.

Spotlight on the Midwest

In the national landscape of college affordability, the Midwest emerges as a particularly unaffordable region. This Midwest spotlight report compares the Great Lakes states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Click here to read.

Appendix

More NCAN Resources

• NCAN Federal Policy Priorities
  
• Strengthen Pell Grants
  
• Past NCAN affordability research: 2021, 2020,  2019, and 2018